A  League  of  Nations 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN 

mi  in—  —  1  1  '  11  » 

OF  NEW  JERSEY 

IN  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY  28,  191$ 


108437—19368 


WASHINGTON 

1919 


( 


\ 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  JOSEPH  S.  ERELIN GHUYSEN. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS. 

Mr,  FRELINGHUYSEN.  Mr.  President,  I  agree  with  the 
Senator  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  Lenroot]  in  the  statement  that 
this  is  the  most  important  question  at  this  time  before  the 
country,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  those  men  who  represent  the  people 
to  express  their  views  upon  this  subject.  The  conditions  as 
suggested  in  the  proposal  of  the  league  of  nations  should  not 
be  imposed  upon  the  people  of  this  country  until  they  have  a 
full  realization  of  what  those  conditions  are  and  what  they 
mean,  and  the  men  who  represent  their  constituencies  should  not 
be  criticized  if,  through  honest  criticism,  they  oppose  the  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  league,  because  it  is  their  duty,  in  my  opinion,  to 
state  publicly  their  views.  In  my  State  I  have  been  somewhat 
criticized  because  it  has  been  stated  that  I  am  opposed  to  a 
league  of  nations. 

I  do  not  wish  at  this  time,  in  the  closing  hours  of  the  session, 
to  take  too  much  of  the  valuable  time  of  the  Senate  in  discussing 
this  question,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  shall  shortly 
adjourn  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  an  extra  session  will  be 
soon  called,  which  I  fervently  hoped  might  be  very  soon  called, 
in  order  to  dispose  of  the  important  questions  before  the  country, 
I  feel  that  it  is  my  duty  at  this  time  to  state  very  definitely  my 
views  upon  this  important  question. 

Mr.  President,  on  November  11,  1918,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  announced  to  Congress  in  joint  session  the  terms 
of  the  armistice  accepted  and  signed  by  the  German  authorities 
and  informed  us  that  the  war  thereby  came  to  an  end. 

On  December  2,  1918,  he  again  appeared  before  Congress  In 
joint  session  and  stated  his  intention  of  departing  immediately 
for  Europe.  In  the  course  of  his  address  he  said : 

I  welcome  this  occasion  to  announce  my  purpose  to  join  in  Paris  the 
representatives  of  the  Governments  with  which  we  have  been  associated 
in  the  war  against  the  central  empires  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
with  them  the  main  features  of  the  treaty  of  peace. 

The  allied  Governments  have  accepted  the  bases  of  peace  which  I 
outlined  to  the  Congress  on  the  8th  of  January  last,  as  the  central 
empires  also  have,  and  very  reasonably  desire  my  personal  counsel  in 
their  interpretation  and  application,  and  it  is  highly  desirable  that  I 
should  give  it  in  order  that  the  sincere  desire  of  our  Government  to 
contribute  without  selfish  purpose  of  any  kind  to  settlements  that  will 
be  of  common  benefit  to  all  the  nations  concerned  may  be  made  fully 
manifest.  The  peace  settlements  which  are  now  to  be  agreed  upon  are 
of  transcendent  importance  both  to  us  and  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  and 
I  know  of  no  business  or  interest  which  should  take  precedence  of  them. 

We  hope,  I  believe,  for  the  formal  conclusion  of  the  war  by  treaty  by 
the  time  spring  has  come. 

Spring  has  almost  come,  the  President  has  returned,  but 
without  any  treaty  of  peace,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  gather,  without 
any  clear  conception  as  to  when  there  will  be  a  treaty  of  peace. 

108437 — 19368  3 


4 


More  than  three  months  have  elapsed  since  the  armistice  was 
signed.  Almost  daily  during  that  period  I  have  been  importuned, 
as  I  am  sure  every  other  Senator  has  been  importuned,  to  know 
when  our  boys  will  all  be  returned.  If  I  can  believe  the  rela¬ 
tives  of  the  boys  themselves,  they,  too,  desire  to  return  and  long 
for  their  homes,  now  that  the  actual  fighting  has  ceased  and 
time  hangs  heavily  upon  their  hands.  On  all  sides  business  men 
are  clamoring  for  a  return  to  peace  conditions.  Why  a  treaty 
of  peace  has  not  been  concluded  and  when  a  treaty  of  peace  is 
likely  to  be  concluded  are  questions  on  which  I  have  no  more 
light  than  the  average  citizen. 

When  the  President  announced  his  departure  for  Europe  he 
assured  us : 

I  shall  be  in  close  touch  with  you  and  with  affairs  on  this  side  of  the 
water  and  you  will  know  all  that  I  do.  At  my  request  the  French  and 
English  Governments  have  absolutely  removed  the  censorship  of  cable 
news  which  until  within  a  fortnight  they  had  maintained,  and  there  is 
now  no  censorship  whatever  exercised  at  this  end,  except  upon  at¬ 
tempted  trade  communications  with  enemy  countries.  *  •  *  I  did 

so  at  the  advice  of  the  most  experienced  cable  officials,  and  I  hope  that 
the  results  will  justify  my  hope  that  the  news  of  the  next  few  months 
may  pass  with  the  utmost  freedom  and  with  the  least  possible  delay 
from  each  side  of  the  sea  to  the  other. 

Notwithstanding  the  promise  made  by  the  President  that  he 
would  be  in  close  touch  with  Congress  and  with  affairs  on  this 
side  of  the  water  and  that  we  would  know  all  that  he  did,  I  am 
sure  it  is  an  open  secret  that  the  President  never  communicated 
any  information  to  Congress  during  his  absence  of  almost  12 
weeks. 

On  the  eve  of  his  departure  he  told  us,  as  above  stated,  that 
the  allied  governments  accepted  the  bases  of  peace  which  he  out¬ 
lined  on  January  8,  1918.  The  first  basis  called  for  “  open 
covenants  of  peace  openly  arrived  at.”  Had  that  basis  been 
followed  and  had  the  censorship  of  cable  news  been  removed  as 
he  assured  us  it  would  be,  we  could  have  learned  through  the 
press  all  that  was  taking  place.  Instead,  however,  of  “  open 
covenants  of  peace  openly  arrived  at  ”  we  learn  from  the  press 
that  practically  all  negotiations  take  place  in  secret. 

At  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  President.  December  4, 
1918,  I  introduced  the  following  resolution  in  the  Senate : 

Whereas  the  President  has  informed  Congress  that  the  bases  of  peace 
outlined  by  him  on  the  8th  of  January  last  have  been  accepted  by  the 
allied  Governments  and  by  the  central  empires,  and  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  see  that  no  false  or  mistaken  interpretation  is  put  upon 
them  ;  and 

Whereas  the  President  has  never  stated  his  own  interpretation  of  such 
bases  and  the  same,  particularly  those  relating  to  “A  !eague  of 
nations  ”  and  the  “  Freedom  of  the  seas,”  are  open  to  various  inter¬ 
pretations,  some  of  which  may  be  in  conflict  with  established  national 
traditions ;  and 

Whereas  the  President  has  announced  that  the  various  steps  in  the 
approaching  negotiations  abroad  shall  be  promptly  made  known  to  the 
American  people  :  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be,  and  be  is  hereby,  respectfully  re¬ 
quested  to  make  publicly  known  his  own  interpretation  of  his  proposed 
peace  terms  as  presented  to  Congress  January  8,  1918,  and  not  attempt 
to  impose  such  interpretation  upon  the  international  conference  about  to 
assemble  until  full  opportunity  is  presented  to  the  American  public  to 
become  acquainted  with  the  same,  to  the  end  that  this  Nation  may  not 
be  committed  to  policies  in  contravention  of  the  traditions  of  the  United 
States;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  forthwith  transmitted  to 
the  President. 

108437—19368 


5 

At  the  time  of  its  introduction  and  by  way  of  explanation  I 
made  the  following  statement: 

“  Mr.  President,  in  his  address  to  Congress  of  December  2 
the  President  informed  us  that  the  bases  of  peace  outlined  by 
him  to  us  on  the  8tli  of  January  last  have  been  accepted  by 
the  allied  Governments  and  by  the  central  empires,  and  by  way 
of  explanation  of  his  trip  to  Europe  he  stated  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  see  ‘  that  no  false  or  mistaken  interpretation  is  put 
upon  them.’ 

“  In  view  of  this  explanation  it  requires  no  argument  to  show 
that  various  interpretations  may  be  placed  upon  the  bases  of 
peace  which  he  outlined.  Some  of  the  bases  relate  not  merely 
to  a  settlement  of  the  present  war  but  to  our  relations  in  the 
future  with  all  governments.  Heretofore  we  have  been  guided 
by  certain  traditions.  The  immortal  Washington,  in  his  Fare¬ 
well  Address,  gave  certain  advice,  which  we  have  religiously 
followed.  He  said : 

“  Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have  none  or  a 
very  remote  relation.  Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  con¬ 
troversies,  the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns. 
Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves  by  arti¬ 
ficial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  politics  or  the  ordinary 
combinations  and  collisions  of  her  friendships  or  enmities. 

“  It  may  well  be  that  conditions  have  so  changed  that  we 
should  no  longer  follow  advice  by  which  we  have  been  guided 
for  more  than  a  century.  As  a  representative  of  the  people,  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  should  not  bind  ourselves  to  a  policy  at 
variance  with  it  unless  certain  that  such  is  the  will  of  the 
people. 

“  The  fourteenth  basis  proposed  by  the  President  reads : 

“A  general  association  of  nations  must  be  formed  under  specific  cov¬ 
enants  for  the  purpose  of  affording  mutual  guaranties  of  political  inde¬ 
pendence  and  territorial  integrity  to  great  and  small  States  alike. 

“  Does  this  basis  mean  that  we  will  join  with  European  na¬ 
tions  in  a  guaranty  of  the  political  independence  and  terri¬ 
torial  integrity  of  all  States  both  great  and  small?  Does  it 
mean  that  to  preserve  such  territorial  integrity  and  political 
independence  we  will,  in  fulfillment  of  our  guaranty,  use, 
whenever  necessary,  our  Army  and  Navy?  Does  it  mean  that 
henceforth  we  must  take  part  in  all  political  and  territorial 
disputes  throughout  the  world?  We  have  among  us  many  who 
came  to  our  shores  and  the  children  of  many  who  came  to  our 
shores  because  of  the  constant  quarrels  and  jealousies  of 
European  nations  and  because  of  the  fear  that  such  quarrels 
and  jealousies  might  any  day  involve  them  in  war.  I  do  not 
say  that  we  should  not  do  our  utmost  to  prevent  future  wars. 
That  I  concede  is  our  duty,  but  if  we  propose  to  obligate  our¬ 
selves  to  use  our  Army  and  Navy  ' whenever  necessary  in  any 
part  of  the  world  to  preserve  peace  we  should  be  certain  that 
we  are  conforming  to  the  will  of  those  whom  we  represent. 

“  The  President  is  the  chosen  leader  of  the  United  States,  Any 
proposal  which  he  may  make  will  naturally  carry  with  it  great 
weight.  If  he  proposes  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  the  use  of 
its  Army  and  Navy  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world,  or  if  he 
assents  to  any  such  proposal  if  made  by  another  nation,  what 
position  will  the  Senate  be  in  should  such  a  proposal  be  adopted? 
Constitutionally  we  will  be  free  to  exercise  our  own  judgment 
and  to  accept  or  reject  any  treaty  which  the  Executive  may  ne- 
108437 — 19368 


6 


gotiate.  Will  we,  however,  be  free  from  embarrassment  should 
other  nations  say  to  us,  ‘  Your  Chief  Executive  spoke  in  behalf 
of  the  American  public  and  supposedly  voiced  their  views’? 
That  brings  me  to  the  point  of  my  motion.  Is  the  President  sure 
that  his  interpretation  of  the  bases  of  peace  is  the  interpretation 
of  the  American  public?  As  he  has  never  made  known  such  in¬ 
terpretation,  how  can  he  be  sure?  Should  he  not,  in  all  justice, 
before  he  makes  any  proposal  on  such  momentous  questions 
make  known  to  the  public  what  interpretation  he  places  upon 
his  fourteenth  basis,  and  should  he  not  afford  the  public  an 
opportunity  to  voice  its  opinion? 

“  The  fourteenth  basis  is  not  the  only  one  which  involves  a 
comparison  of  our  past  traditions  with  what  should  be  our  policy 
in  the  future.  During  the  Civil  War  in  order  to  preserve  the 
Union  we  found  it  necessary  to  insist  upon  and  to  exercise  the 
right  to  condemn  cargo  owned  by  a  neutral  and  shipped  from 
one  neutral  port  to  another  neutral  port  where  it  appeared  that 
such  cargo  was  ultimately  intended  for  transshipment  to  the 
enemy,  in  Europe  the  doctrine  of  ultimate  destination  was  dis¬ 
puted,  but  if  that  doctrine  had  not  been  practiced  during  the 
present  war  who  will  dare  say  what  would  have  been  the  result? 
Certainly  the  prevention  of  supplies  reaching  Germany  through 
neutral  countries  contributed 'in  no  small  measure  to  her  defeat. 
Can  anyone  here  tell  me  what  is  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
second  basis  of  peace  outlined  by  the  President  in  January  last? 
It  reads : 

“Absolute  freedom  of  navigation  upon  the  seas,  outside  territorial 
waters,  alike  in  peace  and  in  war,  except  as  the  seas  may  be  closed  In 
whole  or  in  part  by  international  action  for  the  enforcement  of  inter¬ 
national  covenants. 

“  If  such  had  been  the  rule  during  the  Civil  War,  could  supplies 
have  flowed  uninterruptedly  from  Europe  to  the  South  by  way 
of  Mexico?  If  in  force  during  the  present  war,  could  supplies 
have  flowed  uninterruptedly  from  North  and  South  America  to 
Germany  through  Holland?  I  confess  that  I  do  not  know  what 
is  the  true  interpretation  of  the  phrase  ‘  absolute  freedom  of 
navigation  upon  the  seas,’  and  as  a  representative  of  the  people 
I  respectfully  suggest  that  if  the  President’s  interpretation  in¬ 
volves  a  departure  from  our  traditions  he  should  not  propound 
such  interpretation  as  a  proposal  in  behalf  of  the  American 
public  unless  he  is  certain  that  the  American  public  approves  it. 
How  can  he  be  certain  that  the  American  public  approves  an 
interpretation  which  has  never  been  made  known  to  it? 

“  It  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  call  attention  to  any  other 
basis  of  peace  proposed  by  the  President  to  illustrate  my  view¬ 
point.  There  has  never  been  a  time  in  our  history  which  called 
for  greater  caution  and  wisdom.  There  has  never  been  a  time 
when  the  practice  of  pitiless  publicity,  so  frequently  advocated 
by  the  President,  was  more  urgently  required.  The  American 
public  is  a  reading  public,  a  thinking  public.  It  does  not  hesi¬ 
tate  and  will  not  hesitate  to  express  its  opinion  if  afforded  an 
opportunity.  In  my  opinion  the  President  should  not  in  behalf 
of  the  American  public  make  proposals  which  involve  a  radical 
departure  unless  he  is  certain  that  his  proposal  carries  with  it 
the  approval  of  the  people.  Though  we  are  not  bound  by  any 
treaty  which  he  may  negotiate,  still,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he 
was  choser  by  the  people  to  the  highest  position  in  the  country, 
108437 — 19368 


7 


other  nations  may  not  recognize  that  his  proposals  are  subject 
to  our  reviev  and  may  feel  affronted  should  we  differ  from  him. 
It  is  his  duty  as  well  as  ours  to  act  for  the  people ;  and,  to  avoid 
misunderstanding,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  people  should  be  told 
by  him  what  is  the  interpretation  which  he  places  upon  his  basis 
of  peace  and  should  be  advised  to  what  extent  he  intends  in 
their  behalf  to  propose  a  policy  which  may  involve  an  abandon¬ 
ment  of  our  traditions.  All  I  ask  is  that  the  public  should  be 
taken  into  the  confidence  of  the  President,  that  he  should  afford 
the  public  an  opportunity  to  express  its  views,  and,  should  it 
appear  that  there  is  a  pronounced  view  upon  any  subject,  that 
he  will  not  run  counter  to  it.  It  is  for  such  reason  that  I  have 
introduced  my  motion.” 

Mr.  President,  more  than  three  months  have  passed  since  I  sug¬ 
gested  that  the  public  should  be  taken  into  the  confidence  of  the 
President  and  should  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  express  its 
views  upon  the  bases  of  peace  suggested  by  him,  and  particularly 
upon  his  proposed  league  of  nations.  Has  the  public  been  taken 
into  the  confidence  of  the  President?  It  has  to  this  extent :  That 
a  league  of  nations  recommended  by  representatives  of  14  powers 
has  been  presented  to  the  world,  and  the  President  on  the  day 
of  his  arrival  in  Boston  delivered  an  address  If  I  read  that 
address  correctly,  the  President  resents  criticism  of  the  league 
of  peace.  He  argued  that  we  had  fought  not  so  much  to  defeat  the 
Germans  but  to  establish  liberty  throughout  the  world,  and  that 
now  it  was  our  duty  henceforth  to  preserve  liberty  not  merely  in 
the  United  States  but  anywhere  and  everywhere.  He  sets  up 
no  simple  task  for  ourselves  and  our  posterity.  His  appeal, 
however — and  I  say  it  with  all  due  respect — was  to  sentiment 
rather  than  to  reason.  It  is  rarely  that  the  author  of  any 
project  that  will  stand  criticism  and  dissection  resents  either 
or  resorts  to  threats  against  those  who  attempt  to  try  either. 
Yet,  if  I  read  the  Boston  address  correctly,  anyone  who  dares 
to  dissent  from  the  league  of  nations  is  threatened  with  dire 
results.  To  avoid  misunderstanding  I  will  quote  a  few  pas¬ 
sages  : 

Any  man  who  resists  the  present  tides  that  run  in  the  world  will 
find  himself  thrown  upon  a  shore  so  high  and  barren  that  it  will  seem 
as  if  he  had  been  separated  from  his  human  kind  forever. 

He  continued  that  it  was  our  duty  not  only  to  sign  a  treaty 
of  peace  but  also  to  combine  with  others  to  make  it  good  and  to 
give  assurances  to  the*  people  of  the  world  “  that  they  shall  be 
safe.”  Without  such  combination  and  assurances  he  stated 
that  a  treaty  of  peace  would  be  but  “  a  modern  scrap  of  paper,” 
though  I  do  not  see  any  place  in  the  address  wherein  he  estab¬ 
lished  that  a  paper  league  of  nations  might  not  also  be  but  a 
modern  scrap  of  paper.  However,  he  proclaimed  that  any  man 
who  dared  to  think  that  America  is  not  willing  to  combine  to 
make  good  any  treaty  of  peace  which  may  be  established  and 
to  give  assurances  to  all  people  that  they  shall  be  safe  did  not 
know  his  country.  He  invites  such  men  to  test  the  sentiments 
of  the  country,  urging  that  it  is  our  duty  to  make  men  free 
everywhere,  and  that  anyone  unwilling  to  undertake  such  a 
task  is  provincial  and  that  he  for  one  is  ready  to  measure  swords 
with  him.  He  said: 

I  have  fighting  blood  in  me,  and  it  is  sometimes  a  delight  to  let  it 
have  scope ;  but  if  it  is  a  challenge  on  this  occasion  it  will  be  an 
indulgence. 

108437 — 19368 


8 


What  a  change  has  the  trip  to  Europe  made !  Only  two  years 
ago  the  President  was  elected  to  a  second  term  of  office.  What 
was  urged  for  his  reelection?  Was  it  not  that  he  had  kept 
us  out  of  war?  Can  it  be  claimed  of  the  President  that  he 
raised  one  finger  to  save  Belgium  or  to  save  France  or  to  save 
any  of  the  oppressed  peoples  of  Europe?  Was  he  not  criticized 
here  at  home  because  he  was  “  too  proud  to  fight,”  and  did  he 
not  close  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  American  rights  were  being 
trampled  upon  by  Germany,  and  that  we  were  scorned  and  dis¬ 
honored?  Did  he  not  tell  us  that  we  should  be  neutral  not 
only  in  fact  but  also  in  thought?  Did  he  resort  to  war  against 
Germany  until  men  like  Col.  Roosevelt  and  other  citizens 
insisted  that  the  country  had  some  honor,  and  that  the 
rights  of  our  citizens  must  be  safeguarded?  Did  he  not  in  his 
address  of  February  26,  1917,  advise  merely  “  armed  neutrality,” 
explaining  such  act  on  the  following  April  2,  when  Germany  had 
actually  forced  us  into  war,  as  follows: 

I  thought  that  it  would  suffice  to  assert  our  neutrality  rights  with 
arms,  our  right  to  use  the  seas  against  unlawful  interference,  our 
right  to  keep  our  people  safe  against  unlawful  violence. 

He  found  armed  neutrality  insufficient  to  the  protection  of 
our  rights,  and  he  engaged  in  the  war  because  Germany  at  the 
time  was  really  waging  war  on  us,  and  because  public  senti¬ 
ment  refused  to  close  its  eyes  to  that  fact.  Now  the  man  who, 
in  spite  of  bitter  criticism  and  the  fact  that  the  honor  of  our 
country  was  at  stake,  refused  to  fight,  heaps  maledictions  on 
the  heads  of  those  who  dare  to  question  his  plan  to  fight  if 
necessary  to  make  not  our  people  but  the  people  of  the  whole 
world  safe,  and  who  does  not  hesitate  to  say  to  those  who  ques¬ 
tion  the  wisdom  of  such  a  course  that  he  has  fighting  blood  in 
him,  and  that  to  now  fight  for  the  people  of  the  whole  world 
will  be  an  indulgence. 

This  is  surely  remarkable  language  for  a  man  who  two  years 
ago  seemed  to  consider  a  fight  for  the  protection  of  the  rights 
of  American  citizens  as  a  most  bitter  pill. 

The  world  longs  for  peace.  For  centuries  men  have  studied 
and  discussed  plans  to  prevent  wars.  So  far  no  successful  plan 
has  been  devised.  I  am  willing  to  advocate  any  plan  that  will 
prevent  wars.  The  President  has  my  admiration  and  congratu¬ 
lations  for  the  study  which  he  has  given  to  the  subject  and  for 
his  tireless  efforts  in  that  direction.  I  can  not  believe,  how¬ 
ever,  that  universal  peace  will  come  through  any  plan  which  its 
authors  refuse  to  have  the  public  carefully  study,  criticize,  and 
understand  before  giving  approval. 

As  a  Senator  of  the  United  States,  I  feel  that  my  duty  is  first 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  To  me  it  seems  that  the 
question  is  not  whether  the  plan  is  better  for,  say,  the  Balkans, 
but  whether  it  will  be  in  harmony  with  the  opening  of  our  Con¬ 
stitution.  As  the  opening  clause  of  the  Constitution  is  rarely 
referred  to  and  seems  to  be  ignored  in  discussion,  I  will  read  it: 

We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the 
common  defense,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America. 

Will  this  proposed  plan  secure  “  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  our  posterity”?  Will  it  insure  domestic  tran¬ 
quillity?  Will  it  promote  the  general  welfare  and  common  de- 
108437 — 19368 


9 


fense?  These  are  questions  which  we  must  all  consider,  and 
we  must  not  refrain  from  their  consideration  because  of  threats, 
no  matter  how  or  by  whom  made.  We  must  perforin  our  duty. 
We  are  all  for  universal  peace,  but  primarily  we  are  all  for  the 
United  States.  We  should  not, make  any  change  in  our  policies 
unless  we  are  reasonably  sure  that  such  change  will  promote 
the  interests  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  with  some  surprise  that  I  have  read  a  statement  of  Mr. 
Taft,  a  man  whom  I  greatly  respect  and  admire,  to  the  effect 
that  he  who  objects  to  the  proposed  league  of  nations  should 
suggest  another  remedy  to  prevent  war  or  else  hold  his  peace. 
Mr.  Taft  certainly  has  an  advantage  over  me  in  that  he  has  had 
legal  training  and  unusual  experience  on  the  bench  and  at  the 
bar.  As  a  plain  business  man,  however,  in  the  conduct  of  my 
business  I  always  believed  and  supposed  that  other  men  believed 
that  when  any  of  my  associates  or  subordinates  proposed  a 
change  in  the  manner  of  conducting  our  business  that  it  was 
up  to  the  person  proposing  the  change  to  show  why  it  should 
be  made.  I  think  the  lawyers  call  it  “  the  burden  of  proof.”  For 
more  than  a  century  we  have  pursued  a  certain  policy.  A 
change  is  now  advocated.  I  confess  I  can  not  see  why  those  who 
desire  to  look  carefully  into  the  change  should  be  told  that 
they  must  hold  their  peace  unless  they  can  propose  a  hetter 
change.  Logically,  it  seems  to  me  that  those  who  are  proposing 
the  change  must  satisfy  the  people  that  it  is  to  their  interest  to 
make  it,  and  they  should  cheerfully  welcome  all  questions  and 
criticisms,  so  as  to  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  carry  the 
burden  and  to  demonstrate  beyond  doubt  that  we  have  reached 
the  parting  of  the  ways;  that  we  must  abandon  our  old  policies 
and  pursue  a  new  course.  In  short,  to  my  mind  those  who  advo¬ 
cate  a  departure  from  the  course  outlined  by  the  immortal 
Washington  must  show  very  clearly  and  convincingly  that  that 
proposed  by  Mr.  Wilson,  though  as  yet  untried,  is  superior  to 
that  of  Washington,  which  has  stood  the  test  of  more  than  a 
century. 

Neither  the  Senate  nor  the  House  of  Representatives  nor  the 
people  of  the  United  States  can  be  treated  as  school  children 
nor  even  college  undergraduates.  The  very  first  amendment  to 
our  Constitution  provided  for  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press,  and  if  there  is  one  thing  which  citizens  of  the  United 
States  cherish  it  is  the  right  to  consider  acts  of  their  repre¬ 
sentatives  and  to  freely  criticize  them.  Criticism  does  not  nec¬ 
essarily  mean  hostility.  We  all  want  peace — peace  not  merely 
in  the  United  States,  but  peace  throughout  the  world,  because 
war  in  any  part  of  the  world  has  more  or  less  effect  upon  every 
other  part.  If  it  is  possible  to  have  a  league  of  nations  which 
will  substitute  the  pen  for  the  sword,  we  most  certainly  want  it. 
A  league  of  nations  is  now  proposed,  and  as  a  Member  of  the 
Senate  I  consider  it  not  only  my  right  but  my  duty  to  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  parts  in  it  which  I  do  not  understand  and  to  seek  infor¬ 
mation  which  will  enable  me  and  those  whom  I  represent  to  de¬ 
termine  whether  it  should  be  adopted  as  it  is  ;  and  if  not,  whether 
it  is  capable  of  amendment  and  in  what  respects.  Light,  how¬ 
ever,  upon  it  and  some  illustrations  of  how  it  may  work  are  re¬ 
quired.  The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  has  had  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  confer  with  the  President,  and  from  him  I  hope  it  has 
gained  such  light  that  it  will  be  able  to  explain  to  us  the  mean- 
108437—19368 


10 


ing  of  certain  clauses  of  the  league  which  are  not  entirely  clear 
and  to  illustrate  to  the  public  what  may  be  expected  to  happen 
under  it. 

In  the  preamble  of  the  league  it  is  recited  that  it  is  adopted  to 
promote  international  cooperation  and  to  establish  justice  “  and 
a  scrupulous  respect  for  all  treaty  obligations  in  the  dealings  of 
organized  peoples  with  one  another.”  Are  we  prepared  to  enter 
into  a  compact  that  all  existing  treaty  obligations  between  any 
of  the  parties  to  the  league  must  be  scrupulously  observed? 
Time  and  again  have  we  heard  the  charge  made  that  the  bane 
of  civilization  is  secret  treaties.  I  can  not  find  in  the  text 
of  the  league  any  provision  that  all  treaties  now  existing  be¬ 
tween  any  of  the  parties  to  it  must  be  laid  on  the  table  and  ex¬ 
posed  to  the  public  view. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I  think  the  Senator  will  find  such  a  pro¬ 
vision  in  the  articles  of  the  league. 

Mr.  FRELINGHUYSEN.  Will  the  Senator  please  point  it 
out?  I  am  anxious  to  have  my  questions  answered,  and  I  in¬ 
tend  that  these  questions  shall  go  into  the  Record  ;  and  before  I 
make  up  my  opinion  on  this  league  of  nations  I  shall  demand 
that  those  questions  be  answered.  I  will  continue  while  the 
Senator  is  hunting  for  the  provision. 

I  had  hoped  that  henceforth  there  would  be  no  secret  treaties 
and  that  the  people  of  each  nation  would  know  the  compacts 
which  their  own  nation  and  every  other  nation  had  made. 

By  article  23  of  the  league  the  contracting  parties  agree 
“  that  every  treaty  or  international  engagement  entered  into 
hereafter  by  any  State  member  of  the  league  shall  be  forthwith 
registered.”  Why  limit  the  registration  to  treaties  “  hereafter  ” 
made?  Perhaps  the  Senator  can  answer  that.  It  is  true 
that  by  article  25  the  parties  agree  that  all  obligations  in- 
terse  “  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  terms  ”  of  the 
league  shall  be  deemed  abrogated.  Who  is  to  determine  if  they 
are  inconsistent,  and  how  is  it  to  be  determined  if  the  treaties 
are  not  made  public?  In  other  words,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
President  is  proposing  a  league  which  tacitly  recognizes  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  secret  treaties  and  which  does  not  require  their  pub¬ 
lication.  If  it  is  logical  to  have  future  treaties  registered,  why 
is  it  not  just  as  logical  to  have  past  treaties  registered?  Why 
should  we  enter  into  a  compact  where  some  of  the  parties  to  it 
may  have  obligations  among  themselves  of  which  we  know  noth¬ 
ing,  and  from  which  we  might  shrink  if  we  did  know  them.  When 
the  President  was  governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  and  I 
was  a  member  of  the  senate  of  that  State,  he  advocated  pitiless 
publicity.  Let  us  have  pitiless  publicity  upon  all  phases  of  any 
compact  to  which  we  are  a  party.  May  I  therefore  ask  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  following  question? 

Question  1.  Is  it  true  that  if  the  league  of  nations  as  proposed 
is  entered  into,  some  of  the  parties  to  it  can  keep  secret  treaties 
made  between  them  at  any  time  prior  to  its  adoption? 

In  article  2  it  is  provided  that  each  of  the  contracting  parties 
shall  have  one  vote,  while  from  article  7  I  would  infer  that 
not  only  may  a  nation  be  a  party  to  the  league,  but  also  its  domin¬ 
ions  and  colonies.  Does  that  mean  that  a  nation  with  a  number 
of  colonies  may  have  as  many  votes  as  it  has  colonies  plus  its 
own  vote?  It  has  been  charged  here  that  Great  Britain  will  have 
five  votes.  We  have  all  seen  in  the  press  long  before  the 
league  of  nations  became  public  that  Great  Britain  would  not 
108437—19368 


11 


submit  to  any  curtailment  of  its  navy  or  to  any  interference  with 
its  rights  on  the  sea.  One  of  Mr.  Wilson’s  14  points  called  for 
absolute  freedom  of  navigation  upon  the  seas.  I  can  not  find  any 
reference  to  that  point  in  the  proposed  constitution  of  the 
league  of  nations.  In  the  address  which  Mr.  Wilson  deliv¬ 
ered  in  Boston  the  other  day  he  calls  attention  to  many  new 
nations  which  will  be  set  up  in  Europe,  such  as  the  Polish 
Nation,  the  Nation  of  Czecho-Slavoks,  and  the  Nation  of 
Jugo-Slavs.  Many  of  our  citizens  never  heard  of  the  lat¬ 
ter  two  nationalities  until  within  the  past  year.  No  mention, 
however,  is  made  in  Mr.  Wilson’s  address  of  the  Irish.  If  Great 
Britain  has  been  forceful  enough  to  keep  out  of  the  league  of  na¬ 
tions  all  reference  to  freedom  of  the  seas,  and  if  Mr.  Wilson 
could  not  call  attention  to  the  organization  of  any  nation  for 
the  Irish,  what  will  Great  Britain  be  able  to  do  if  it  is  true  as  is 
charged  on  the  floor  of  this  Senate  that  she  will  when  the  league 
of  nations  is  organized  have  five  votes?  A  reference  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  will  show  that  the  Colonies  on  July 
4,  1776,  solemnly  published  and  declared  that  all  political  connec¬ 
tion  between  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain  is  and  ought 
to  be  totally  dissolved,  and  for  seven  years  they  waged  war  to 
dissolve  it,  and  they  did  dissolve  it.  Are  we  now  to  enter  into  a 
compact  whereby  Great  Britain  will  have  five  votes  and  we  one? 
May  I,  therefore,  ask  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  fol¬ 
lowing  question,  and  I  will  ask  the  reporter  to  mark  it  “  Q.  2  ” : 

Question  2.  Is  it  true  that  in  the  league  of  nations,  if  adopted 
in  its  present  form,  Great  Britain  will  have  more  votes  than  the 
United  States  of  America? 

May  I  also  ask: 

Question  3.  Is  it  possible  that  if  the  league  of  nations  is 
adopted  as  proposed,  people  who  were  formerly  subject  to  our 
enemies  shall  have  the  right  of  self-determination,  but  such 
right  shall  be  denied  to  people  who  are  subject  to  those  who 
fought  with  us  against  our  enemies? 

In  article  5  it  is  provided  that  the  secretary  general  of  the 
league  shall  be  chosen  by  the  executive  council.  May  I  ask  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  following  question : 

Question  4.  If  it  can  tell  us  if  there  is  anything  in  the  pro¬ 
posed  league  which  will  prevent  some  of  the  parties  to  it  from 
uniting  in  an  agreement  before  its  adoption  as  to  the  personnel 
of  the  secretary  general? 

In  article  8  it  is  provided  that  the  executive  council  shall  de¬ 
termine  for  the  consideration  and  action  of  the  several  Govern¬ 
ments  what  military  equipment  and  armament  is  fair  and  rea¬ 
sonable  in  proportion  to  the  scale  of  forces  laid  down  in  the 
program  of  disarmament,  and  that  such  limits  when  adopted 
shall  not  be  exceeded  without  the  permission  of  the  executive 
council. 

It  is  also  provided  that  national  armaments  should  be  re¬ 
duced  to  lowest  point  consistent  with  national  safety,  having 
special  regard  to  the  geographical  situation  and  circumstances 
of  each  State.  Inasmuch  as  we  are  protected  by  an  ocean  on 
the  east  and  on  the  west,  is  it  not  possible  that  the  executive 
council  may  conclude  that  we  should  reduce  our  military  equip¬ 
ment  and  armament  to  a  minimum,  while  Great  Britain,  be¬ 
cause  of  its  geographical  position,  should  maintain  supremacy 
on  the  sea  and  should  also,  because  of  proximity  to  the  Conti- 
108437—19368 


12 


nent  of  Europe,  maintain  a  substantial  military  equipment  and 
armament? 

Question  5.  Are  the  people  of  this  country  satisfied  to  have  a 
council  made  up  of  representatives  of  governments  the  major¬ 
ity  of  which  are  of  a  form  different  from  ours  pass  upon  such 
a  vital  question  as  to  the  size  of  our  Army  and  Navy?  Per¬ 
haps  the  committee  can  give  us  some  light  on  the  subject,  and 
I  therefore  ask  them : 

Question  G.  To  what  extent  will  the  United  States  part  with 
its  right  to  determine  the  size  of  its  own  Army  and  Navy 
should  it  enter  into  the  league  of  nations  as  proposed? 

In  article  10  the  parties  agree  to  respect  and  preserve  as 
against  external  aggression  the  territorial  integrity  and  existing 
political  independence  of  all  the  members  of  the  league. 

This  article  is  one  to  which  I  have  given  much  thought  and 
study.  I  will  refrain  from  expressing  my  views  at  length  upon 
it  until  I  am  better  informed  as  to  just  what  it  means.  Let  us 
assume  that  the  league  of  nations  had  been  adopted  in  1775. 
Could  France  have  come  to  the  aid  of  the  Colonies  she  had 
obligated  herself  to  respect  the  territorial  integrity  of  Great 
Britain?  Would  she  have  exposed  herself  to  attack  by  other 
parties  of  the  league  if  she  attempted  to  help  the  Colonies? 
Would  she  not  by  so  doing  have  been  guilty  of  external  aggres¬ 
sion  against  Great  Britain? 

Take  our  War  with  Mexico.  If  that  clause  had  been  in  exist¬ 
ence,  would  Texas  have  been  a  part  of  the  United  States? 
Would  California  be  a  part  of  the  United  States?  Take  our 
War  with  Spain.  Could  we  have  helped  Cuba?  Would  Cuba 
now  be  a  Republic?  Would  we  even  now  be  a  Republic?  Does 
this  clause  mean  an  end  to  the  possibilities  of  people  overthrow¬ 
ing  their  form  of  Government?  Some  of  the  nations  who  will 
be  parties  to  the  league  will  have  colonies,  just  as  we  were  a 
colony  of  Great  Britain  in  1776.  If  any  colony,  after  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  league  of  nations,  attempts  to  set  up  self-govern¬ 
ment,  can  it  look  for  any  help  from  people  who  enjoy  self- 
government?  Will  not  help  be  practically  prohibited?  May  I 
therefore  ask  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  follow¬ 
ing  question: 

Question  7.  Assuming  that  a  league  of  nations  in  the  form  pro¬ 
posed  was  in  effect  at  the  time  of  our  Revolution  could  France 
have  assisted  us?  Assuming  that  it  was  in  effect  at  the  time 
Texas  became  attached  to  the  Union  could  Texas  have  become 
part  of  the  Union?  Assuming  that  it  was  in  effect  at  the  time 
of  our  War  with  Spain  would  Cuba  now  be  free? 

Articles  12.  13,  14,  and  15  relate  to  the  submission  of  dis¬ 
putes  to  arbitration.  Article  13  seems  to  restrict  the  submis¬ 
sion  to  such  disputes  as  the  parties  to  them  consider  suitable 
for  submission,  but  article  12  provides  that  in  no  case  shall 
there  be  resort  to  war  without  submission.  Germany  com¬ 
mitted  acts  against  us  in  1915,  1916,  and  1917  which  were  not 
suitable  for  arbitration.  She  committed  acts  which  any  self- 
respecting  nation  would  resent  by  force.  If  in  the  future  acts 
are  committed  against  us  which  affect  our  honor,  the  lives  and 
property  of  our  citizens,  must  we  refrain  from  war  and  sub¬ 
mit  same  to  arbitration?  Are  we  obligated  to  allow  such  acts  to 
continue  during  the  pendency  of  the  arbitration?  Must  we  sub¬ 
mit  to  continued  insults  for  months  until  a  decision  is  rendered? 
If  the  executive  council  passes  upon  a  dispute  to  which  we  are 
108437—19368 


13 

a  party  and  unanimously  decides  against  us  even  though  we 
are  convinced  that  such  unanimity  is  the  result  of  a  combina¬ 
tion  against  us  and  even  though  the  decision  subjects  us  to  a 
continuance  of  insults  and  an  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of 
our  citizens,  must  we  submit  to  it  or  fight  the  whole  league? 
If  by  force  we  resent  some  insult  rather  than  submit  the  matter 
involved  to  arbitration  it  would  seem  under  article  16  we  would 
ipso  facto  be  deemed  to  have  committed  an  act  of  war  against 
all  other  members  of  the  league. 

I  am  sure  you  all  remember  how  frequently  Mr.  Roosevelt 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  were  some  matters  which 
no  self-respecting  nation  could  submit  to  arbitration  ;  that  na¬ 
tions  are  like  men,  and  that  there  are  certain  kinds  of  insults 
which  no  self-respecting  nation  or  no  man  with  red  blood  in 
his  veins  can  delay  resenting  until  some  one  else  passes  upon  it. 
There  are  times  when  the  honor  of  a  nation  or  the  honor  of  a 
man  must  be  resented  on  the  spot,  and  a  nation  or  a  man  which 
does  not  resent  certain  kinds  of  insults  the  instant  they  occur 
is  not  worthy  of  being  called  a  nation  or  a  man.  May  I,  there¬ 
fore,  ask  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  following 
question : 

Question  8.  Must  all  questions,  irrespective  of  how  they  affect 
our  honor  or  the  lives  and  property  of  our  citizens,  be  submitted 
to  arbitration ;  and  if  so,  is  it  not  possible  for  the  offending 
nation  to  continue  the  insult  or  invasion  of  our  rights  pending 
the  arbitration? 

Under  article  10  and  the  articles  relating  to  arbitration  it  is 
not  clear  to  me  what  may  be  the  result  if  two  nations  in  South 
America  should  become  involved  in  war.  It  seems  possible  that 
the  league  of  nations  might  decide  that  one  of  them  was  guilty 
of  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  league,  and  that  as  a 
result  all  the  other  members  of  the  league  should  make  war 
upon  it.  Should  such  a  decision  be  rendered  and  should  war 
be  made  by  all  upon  a  nation  of  South  America,  that  nation 
undoubtedly  would  be  defeated.  I  see  nothing  in  the  terms  of 
the  league  which  would  prevent  some  portion  of  the  territory 
of  the  defeated  nation  being  taken  to  compensate  some  or  all 
the  members  of  the  league  for  their  losses.  In  other  words,  I 
do  not  feel  certain  that  it  would  not  be  possible  under  this 
league  for  European  nations  to  secure  some  of  the  territory  of 
a  nation  of  South  America  or,  say,  even  of  Mexico  and  colonize 
it,  contrary  to  the  Monroe  doctrine.  May  I,  therefore,  ask  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  following  question  : 

Question  9.  Is  it  not  possible  in  the  event  of  a  war  in  which 
members  of  the  league  take  part  against  an  American  nation 
for  some  or  all  of  the  members  to  insist  upon  and  to  secure 
part  of  the  territory  of  an  American  nation  as  compensation  and 
to  colonize  such  part  contrary  to  the  Monroe  doctrine? 

In  article  20  provision  is  made  for  the  establishment  of  a 
permanent  bureau  of  labor  as  part  of  the  organization  of  the 
league.  What  the  functions  of  such  a  bureau  will  be  I  do  not 
know.  How  they  will  be  determined  is  not  clear.  It  occurs  to 
me  that  perhaps  its  functions  will  be  determined  by  the  execu¬ 
tive  council  or  by  the  delegates  of  the  parties  to  the  league. 
We  certainly  will  be  in  the  minority.  The  conditions  of  labor 
in  this  country  are  better,  I  believe,  than  in  any  other  part  of 
the  world,  and  it  may  be  possible  that  labor  in  this  country  will 
run  the  risk  of  an  attempt  to  pull  down  the  standards  which 
108437—19368 


14 


prevail  here.  I  would  therefore  submit  the  following  question 
to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations : 

Question  10.  What  will  be  the  functions  of  the  permanent  bu¬ 
reau  of  labor,  and  by  whom  and  how  will  such  functions  be  deter¬ 
mined,  and  what  effect  may  such  bureau  have  upon  the  rights 
of  labor  in  the  United  States? 

A  reading  of  the  entire  text  makes  me  wonder  what  would 
have  been  the  effect  on  our  Civil  War  had  such  a  league  existed 
during  that  period.  We  all  remember  the  attitude  of  England 
during  the  Civil  War.  Even  Gladstone  was  hostile  to  the  North, 
and  his  language  at  times  led  our  minister  to  wonder  if  he 
should  not  depart.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  attitude  of  Russia, 
England  would  probably  have  interfered  in  behalf  of  the  South. 
If  such  a  league  was  in  force  during  the  Civil  War,  and  if 
Great  Britain  had,  as  charged  on  the  floor  of  this  Senate,  five 
votes  in  the  league,  would  the  Union  have  been  preserved — 
would  slavery  have  been  abolished?  Perhaps  our  committee, 
after  its  discussion  with  our  President,  is  in  a  position  to 
answer  the  following  question : 

Question  11.  What  would  have  been  the  probable  effect  upon 
the  controversy  between  the  North  and  the  South  during  the 
Civil  War  if  the  league  of  nations  then  existed  and  if,  as 
charged,  Great  Britain  would  have  five  votes? 

I  suppose  that  we  should  read  the  proposed  league  in  the 
light  of  the  President’s  address  in  Boston  on  the  24th  of  this 
month.  To  illustrate  what  I  have  in  mind,  I  quote  the  following 
from  that  address : 

Do  you  believe  in  the  aspirations  of  the  Czecho-Slovaks  and  the  Jugo¬ 
slavs  as  I  do?  Do  you  know  how  many  powers  would  be  quick  to 
pounce  upon  them  if  there  were  not  the  guaranties  of  the  world  behind 
their  liberty? 

Have  you  thought  of  the  sufferings  of  Armenia?  You  poured  out 
your  money  to  help  succor  the  Armenians  after  they  suffered  ;  now  set 
your  strength  so  that  they  shall  never  suffer  again. 

Reading  the  league  in  the  light  of  such  statements,  I  am  led 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  the  desire  and  intention  of  the 
President  that  this  Nation  with  its  Army  and  Navy  should  be 
prepared  to  protect  Poland  against  aggression,  to  protect  the 
Jugo-Slavs  against  aggression,  to  protect  the  Czecho-Slovaks 
against  aggression,  and  to  protect  the  Armenians  against  aggres¬ 
sion.  Is  it  possible  that  he  intends  that  we  should  be  ready 
with  our  Army  and  Navy  to  protect  every  nation  in  the  world 
against  aggression?  Are  we  to  be  involved  in  every  dispute, 
and  must  we  be  ready  at  all  times  to  ship  our  soldiers  over 
seas?  Will  the  mothers  of  the  United  States  sanction  any  such 
plan?  Will  the  taxpayers  of  the  United  States  be  prepared  to 
bear  the  expense?  Are  we  to  be  the  big  brother  of  every 
nation?  Are  we  to  be  the  peacemaker  of  the  world?  I  chal¬ 
lenge  anyone  who  reads  the  address  of  the  President  made  in 
Boston  to  draw  any  other  conclusion  than  that  Europe  to-day 
is  a  seething  cauldron  and  that  the  nations  will  be  at  each 
other’s  throats  within  a  generation  unless  we  prevent  it,  and 
that  none  of  the  nations  of  Europe  trust  each  other,  but  that  all 
trust  in  us.  Are  we  to  join  a  prrtnership  of  that  kind?  Are 
we  to  join  a  partnership  every  member  of  which,  excepting  our¬ 
selves,  is  suspicious  of  every  other  member  and  ready  at  the 
first  opportunity  to  pounce  upon  it?  The  role  of  peacemaker  in 
such  a  combination  is  indeed  one  to  be  seriously  considered. 
How  often  has  it  been  said  that  the  peacemaker,  instead  of 
108437—19368 


15 


promoting  peace,  has  been  torn  to  pieces?  Far  be  it  from  me  to 
think  that  Europe  is  as  bad  as  the  President  paints  it.  Per¬ 
haps  I  have  misinterpreted  his  meaning.  I  am  willing,  how¬ 
ever,  to  have  light,  and  I  therefore  ask  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  the  following  question : 

Question  12.  If  the  United  States  joins  in  the  league  of  na¬ 
tions,  as  proposed,  must  we  be  prepared  with  our  Army  and 
Navy  at  all  times  to  protect  every  party  to  it?  To  bring  home 
the  thought  which  I  have  in  mind  I  will,  perhaps,  be  a  little 
more  specific. 

Question  13.  Assuming  that  an  independent  Poland  is  estab¬ 
lished,  that  Germany  and  Russia  are  restored,  and  that  they 
unite  in  an  attack  upon  Poland,  must  we  be  prepared  with  our 
Army  and  Navy  to  make  war  upon  Germany  and  Russia? 

The  President  has  invited  those  who  would  question  the 
league  of  nations  to  test  the  sentiment  of  this  Nation.  The 
views  of  our  people  not  only  should  be  ascertained  but  must  be 
ascertained.  All  phases  of  the  league  should  be  discussed  and 
considered.  What  we  want  is  the  decision  of  this  Nation,  based 
upon  reflection  and  reason  and  not  upon  mere  sentiment.  Let 
us  have  free  and  open  discussion.  Let  the  public  consider  not 
merely  the  advantages  of  the  proposed  league  but  also  the  bur¬ 
dens.  Let  the  public  say  whether  it  is  satisfied  with  the  league 
as  proposed  or,  if  not,  whether  it  can  be  amended  so  as  to 
be  made  satisfactory,  and,  if  so,  in  what  respects.  The  public 
looks  forward  to  the  day  when  war  will  be  a  thing  of  the  past. 
If,  owing  to  human  imperfections,  such  a  day  may  never  come, 
we  all  wish  to  reduce  wars  in  any  event  to  a  minimum.  If 
the  proposed  league  will  accomplish  that  result,  the  public,  no 
doubt,  will  favor  it,  but  as  the  proposed  league  is  at  least  to 
some  extent  visionary  and  experimental,  the  public,  unless  I  am 
mistaken,  will  join  with  me  in  a  search  for  light  upon  its  mean¬ 
ing  and  for  information  about  the  burdens  we  will  assume  and 
the  possibilities  which  may  ensue  from  its  establishment.  The 
President  is  sure  the  public  approves  it  as  it  is  and  threatens 
with  isolation  upon  a  barren  shore  those  of  his  fellow  citizens 
who  would  question  it,  while  for  the  Government  of  any  foreign 
nation  that  dares  oppose  it  he  predicts  that  the  people  of  such 
nation  will  rise  in  their  might  and  overthrow  such  a  Gov¬ 
ernment. 

Notwithstanding  his  threats,  I  dare  ask  for  light  to  guide  me 
to  a  decision  of  what  is  my  duty  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  With  all  due  respect  to  the  President  I  differ  from  his 
conclusion  upon  my  duty.  My  duty  is  first  to  my  own  country. 
If  I  can  be  true  to  my  own  country  and  at  the  same  time  help 
the  world  I  will  do  so. 

Perhaps  the  President  knows  the  heart  and  the  mind  of  the 
American  people  better  than  I  do.  I  can  not,  however,  believe 
that  the  President  can  take  pride  in  the  fact  that  the  war  was 
won  because  of  his  inspiration,  and  he  states  that  his  views 
about  the  duty  of  this  country  are  infallible  and  not  open  to 
criticism,  and  upbraids  and  threatens  hot  only  his  fellow  citi¬ 
zens  but  also  foreign  nations  who  question  his  views.  I 
can  not  believe  the  President  thoroughly  understands  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  his  fellow  citizens,  and  for  one  I  prefer  to  ascertain 
that  sentiment  directly  from  our  fellow  citizens  rather  than 
to  take  it  without  question  from  him. 

108437 — 19368 

o 


v  •  ' 


• 

<  \ 

•  < 

% 

.  •  » 

t 

! 

• 

/ 

\ 

■  ’ 

.• 

. 

■ 

> 

1 

• 

•  • ;  i 

-  . 

.  .  .'A 

'  ,i 

- 

' 

.1 

T  '  :  ■> 

. 

.  v  ,  '■  '  ’ 

. 

< 

i 

. 

4 

' 

1,'i 

t 

* 

> 

' 

1 

l  ,  V  A.] 

. 

■  '■  1 

’ 

• 

■ 

l 

■  • 

• 

'  •  v 

